. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS268/20 
26 January 2007 
 (07-0370) 
 Original:   English 
  
UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEWS OF ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES  
ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS FROM ARGENTINA  
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Argentina
 
 
Notification of an Other Appeal by Argentina  
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
  
 The following notification, dated 24 January 2007,  from the Delegation of Argentina, is being 
circulated to Members.  
_______________ 
 
 
 Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU") and Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , 
Argentina hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in 
the Report of the Panel on United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Argentina – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU By Argentina  
(WT/DS268/RW) (the "Panel Report") and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this 
dispute.  1. Argentina seeks review by the Appellate Body of  the Panel's conclusions , and its related legal 
findings and interpretations , that "[t]he USDOC did not act inconsistently  with Articles 11.3 and 11.4 
of the Agreement by developing a new factual ba sis for its Section 129 Determination."  This 
conclusion is set out in paragraph 8.1(b) of th e Panel Report.  The re lated legal findings and 
interpretations of the Panel are set out in pa ragraphs 7.47 to 7.61 of the Panel Report. 
 2. The Panel acted inconsistently with its obliga tion under Article 11 of the DSU to make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it.  The Pane l determined that "the resolution of Argentina's 
claim must have regard to broader, horizontal c onsiderations underpinning the operation of the WTO 
dispute settlement system."
1  By basing its findings on "broader, horizontal considerations 
underpinning the operation of the WTO dispute settleme nt system", rather than on the specific claims 
and arguments raised by Argentina, the Panel fa iled to make an objective assessment of "the matter 
before it", including "the facts of the case" and "the  applicability of and confor mity with the relevant 
covered agreements." 
 3. The Panel's findings set out in paragraphs 8.1( b) and 7.47 to 7.61 of the Panel Report were 
also inconsistent with Articles 3.2 and 19.2 of the DSU.  The Panel's findings have diminished 
Argentina's right under Article 11.3 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement to termination of the measure 
after five years in the absence of compliance with  the requirements of Articles 11.3 and 11.4.  The 
                                                     
 
 1 Panel Report, para. 7.51; see also  para. 7.57. WT/DS268/20 
Page 2  
 
Panel's findings also diminished the obligation of the United States to terminate the antidumping 
measure on Argentine OCTG absent a review a nd determination consiste nt with Articles 11.3 
and 11.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  4. The Panel acted inconsistently with its obliga tion under Article 11 of the DSU by failing to 
objectively assess Argentina's request for a suggestion pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.  Noting 
the original Panel's conclusion that it "saw no par ticular reason to make a suggestion and therefore 
decline[ed] Argentina's request"
2, Argentina provided additional argument and explanation as the 
need for a suggestion during the DSU Article 21.5 pr oceeding.  However, without any analysis, the 
Panel simply repeated its statement that it "saw  no particular reason to make a suggestion and 
therefore decline[ed] Argentina's request."3  The Panel also violated Article 12.7 of the DSU by 
failing to set out the findings of fact, the applicability of relevant provisions and the basic rationale behind its finding that there was "no particular reason to make a suggestion."  5. In the light of the Panel's finding that the United States did not bring itself into compliance 
with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and in light of the fact that the United States 
has not appealed the Panel' s finding in the regard,
4 Argentina respectfully re quests that the Appellate 
Body suggest that the United States terminate th e anti-dumping measure on OCTG from Argentina.  
The United States accepts the Panel's decision th at the United States did not achieve compliance 
before the expiration of the implementation period.  Article 19.1 of the DSU authorizes Panels and the 
Appellate Body to make suggesti ons, and to suggest ways in wh ich the Member concerned could 
implement the recommendations.  A suggestion to terminate the anti-dumping measure is appropriate 
and necessary in this case in order to protect the specific rights of Argentina which the United States 
violated, and continues to violate.  
__________ 
 
                                                     
 
 2 WT/DS268/R, para. 8.5. 
 3 Panel Report, para. 9.4. 
 4 While the U.S. Notice of Appeal and the U.S. Ap pellant's Submission allege certain legal errors 
related to the Panel's consideration of the matter before it, the United States does not appeal the Panel's findings 
in paragraph 8.1(c)(1) of the Panel's Report.  The Pane l concluded that the Section 129 Determination, which 
was one of the measures taken to comply, is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Thus, the United States does not challenge th e conclusion that at the United States failed to bring 
itself into compliance with its WTO obligations.  Stated differently, even if the United States were to prevail on 
all its arguments in this appeal, it would still have faile d to bring itself into compliance with its obligations 
under the Anti-Dumping.